When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[guanophore]

Actually no, I’m not saying that.

First of all, I am not talking about “bad Catholics,” but about a mistaken definition (whether official or tacit) of what it means to be a good Catholic. According to IV Lateran, *not *reporting heretics to the authorities (which in practice meant that if they didn’t repent they would be burned at the stake) made you a bad Catholic. Informing on your friends and neighbors, leading to their possible torture and death, made you a good Catholic. I have already requested you not to introduce the “bad Catholics” argument, because frankly it makes a mockery of the issue. The distinction I’m making is between someone doing a bad thing because they give in to temptation in spite of knowing that the Church says it is bad, and someone doing a bad thing (or more broadly, something that does not contribute to the expression and enjoyment of the Fullness of the Faith and its manifestation to the world) because they believe that it is a good thing.

Yes, this is very well elucidated. I contend that the common perception of what it is to be “Catholic” may be entirely irrelevant. Here in the States we have a majority of parish members who claim to be Catholic, yet reject the Teachings of the Church. I do agree with you that their actions are ascribed to the CC. Many of our evangelical brethren use these dissident or nominal Catholics to form their perception of the CC.

I am arguing that this distinction makes a real difference in terms of whether the action in question is an action of the Church or not, and that the distinction you are making does not.

I agree with you. But consider a couple historical comparisons. When Paul was evangelizing, he came upon a group of disciples who “had not even heard that there was a HS”. Paul prayed for them and they received. However, they were believers and disciples before that. Similarly, if persons who claim to be Catholic, or are Catholic, are failing in the fullness of the Truth, why would you define “church” by those who are lacking, rather than by those who have the fullness?

Another example can be found in the Arian heresy. 80% of the Church had fallen into this heresy with the bishops and congregations in wide geographical regions. You are saying that the “Church” (80% that were in error) taught wrongly, or believed wrongly. In contrast, I would say that those “members” of the church taught or believed wrongly. Since the 20% who adhered to the apostolic teaching were the ones who were able to say “right to the HS and to us”, this is the only portion that can be defined as “church” according to the Apostolic criteria. Eventually, this heresy was defeated, and those members who had wandered from the Truth were reunited with the Church in her infallible teaching.

The difference between us is that I recognize the distinction you are making, and argue against it. But you fail to recognize the distinction I am making, and insist on ascribing to me a distinction that I have told you over and over I am not making!

I do not know if it is any consolation, but I think I am following you.

Furthermore, I am not saying that we should not join any Communion where such faults exist–if that were true I would certainly not be an Anglican another minute! I have no objection to being in communion with Rome. I have an objection to leaving my present Communion for yours under the conditions that you require. If I were already a member of your Communion, my present views would not require me to leave you.

Did I not recently read in one of your posts that you would join if the Roman communion had worked out their issues with the Orthodox?

Indeed. And since I am not convinced that Rome has the authority you claim, I remain in the same boat as the disciples–obeying fallible ecclesiastical superiors except when they command things contrary to the law of Christ.

Have you considered that both things may be true? That the successor of Peter in Rome is the custodian of the Petrine gifts, and that there are also fallible ecclesiasitcal supoeriors wh command things contrary to the law of Christ? You are very intelligent, Edwin. I can’t believe that you are unable to hold such a dichotomy.

But this is an argument for remaining in our present affiliations, rather than leaving them for some supposedly more perfect Communion!

Edwin

And may this more perfect communion hasten to us, as we to it.

 

[guanophore]

Not to detract from the main point of the discussion, but I think it would be kind of refreshing if a Catholic would say, “Yes, the Church used to say executing obstinate heretics was the right thing to do, and more power to them. We’ve gone soft, and the world has suffered for it.”

Not a very popular thing to say, perhaps, but I think I would prefer it to the weak attempts to explain away everything in Church history that does not match the modern consensus of what is acceptable behavior.

I can see your point. The problem, however, is that the Church is prohibited from teaching error. Church teaching, by definition, is that which is in unity with the HS. Since the HS canont lead one to do that which is contrary to the Law of Christ, any Catholic or group of Catholics who do such a thing have departed from the fullness of the faith.

There have been areas of the world where local Catholic authorities have engaged in actions that are quite contradictory to the Way of Christ. However, to ascribe this to the Church is like saying that the actions of Judas were the “fault” of Jesus not teaching properly.

Another example is found in I Cor. where Paul is chastizing the behavior of one who has “joined the members of Christ to a prostitute”. When Catholics, including those in positions of authority, join themselves to wrongdoing, they are joining the members of Christ to that wrongdoing. It it sullies and disparages the Church. I can even see how, if such a thing happened on a large scale (executing heretics, for example) one would consider such joining the members of Christ to wrongdoing as wrongdoing of the “church”.

However, when a person commits sins like this, one separates oneself from communion with the Holy Bride of Christ. This is the nature of sin. The Church has been purified by sin, and we are in communion with her only to the extent that we are also pure (in a state of grace). To define the “church” by the actions of those who are behaving in ways contradictory to the faith she holds and teaches does not make sense to me. I can see how outsiders lookin on may say “look what the Catholic Church is doing”, but once a person can see that there is a pure and infallible Church that exists apart from the visible members here on earth, it does not compute anymore.

The infallible aspects of the Church cannot ever sin. these include the saints who are in heaven, who are perfected forever, the Head of the Church (Christ) and the Soul of the Church (the HS).

 

[Pat_De]

Yes, this is a good point. It is also one of the main reasons for the excommunications of the Reformers. They insisted they be “proved wrong from the Bible”, which means they refused to submit to the Apostolic Teaching and authority in the Church, and wanted their own perceptions of the Scriptures to be the final rule and authority.

Or is was the reason for the reformation which had its grass roots long before the Catholic Church began to make up curses on people that disagreed with their views for which it has no authority people such as Martin Luther. Always two ways to look at the same piece of history and the Bible lies on the side of the reformers; just another example of how you can have two views of the same event(s). The consequences of who has the correct view and who does not have everlasting effects.

 

[Pat_De]

You know Guan, I think I figured this whole thing out now. I was thinking about this all day yesterday and it came to me.

Edwin wants the RCC to step down from the authority that it has. And here is why. I see it now because of the abuses that have happend in the past.

He wants the RCC to say that they are sorry for what happened, which lord knows we are all sorry for goodness sakes. It is unacceptable what was done, And we are all sitting on this blister together in the Name Of Jesus Christ.

What those Priests did hiding in Gods name, there is NO excuse for. And no one has ever excused them for it. But it will never be good enough for Edwin, I can see it now.

He wants us to say that we are not the True Living Christ as the CC because of what some leaders have done IN GODS NAME. Thats what it is. I know it is now. Nothing else makes sense.

And he knows it is impossible. The CC can never say that they are not the Living Christ because it is, There is no way the Church can ever deny Christ as the Church. And thats what he wants. Its never going to happen.

I may be way off but I do believe now thats where Edwin is going with this.

There is nothing we can ever do to make up for what happened. Only Jesus can help all who were involved. And unfortunately we are also in the mess. Because no matter what mistakes were made it will never change the fact that it happened and we are the true Church,

So what Edwin really wants is for us to explain how Jesus could have let this happen in his name, because in a way thats how it went down. And we can never explain that. Because it boils down to why does Jesus let people sin and hurt him, and us, and the inocent. So then like you see people deny the existance of God because of this, it would be the same to deny his existance in the CC. Because what Edwin cannot see is it would be the same to say if God exists people would not kill, steal. rape, etc.

Religion; certainly not man at his best and thanks for the excellent exposition of that point. What is great about Jesus is that He is just, in the most humble of ways, a one on one personal God who loves His own to the death. Who are His own?

 

[Pat_De]

I thought I read somewhere that Calvin and Luther weren’t even against Marian teachings. Correct me if I’m wrong.

You may be right because as people learn and grow and are confronted with the truth, the wise man gains understanding and the fool remains hard in his heart. So it is possible that early in life it was acceptable and as knowledge of the truth was confronted it was embraced, which is the choice we all make and these choices may have eternal consequences for the good or for the bad. All people have a change of heart on matters as they grow and learn no matter the subject, such as parenting.

 

[Pat_De]

I can see your point. The problem, however, is that the Church is prohibited from teaching error. Church teaching, by definition, is that which is in unity with the HS. Since the HS canont lead one to do that which is contrary to the Law of Christ, any Catholic or group of Catholics who do such a thing have departed from the fullness of the faith.

There have been areas of the world where local Catholic authorities have engaged in actions that are quite contradictory to the Way of Christ. However, to ascribe this to the Church is like saying that the actions of Judas were the “fault” of Jesus not teaching properly.

Another example is found in I Cor. where Paul is chastizing the behavior of one who has “joined the members of Christ to a prostitute”. When Catholics, including those in positions of authority, join themselves to wrongdoing, they are joining the members of Christ to that wrongdoing. It it sullies and disparages the Church. I can even see how, if such a thing happened on a large scale (executing heretics, for example) one would consider such joining the members of Christ to wrongdoing as wrongdoing of the “church”.

However, when a person commits sins like this, one separates oneself from communion with the Holy Bride of Christ. This is the nature of sin. The Church has been purified by sin, and we are in communion with her only to the extent that we are also pure (in a state of grace). To define the “church” by the actions of those who are behaving in ways contradictory to the faith she holds and teaches does not make sense to me. I can see how outsiders lookin on may say “look what the Catholic Church is doing”, but once a person can see that there is a pure and infallible Church that exists apart from the visible members here on earth, it does not compute anymore.

The infallible aspects of the Church cannot ever sin. these include the saints who are in heaven, who are perfected forever, the Head of the Church (Christ) and the Soul of the Church (the HS).

Isn’t that what happens when you make the claim to be God-like, infallible, when the truth is you are fallible humans; you paint yourselves into corners you cannot retract from because of imperfections, whereas God, who is the on perfect being to ever exist with Jesus as the only perfect human being, which is a strong reason to accept the Bible as the only binding authority, less the DC’s because this we know with certainty is from God in my honest opinion. It is why I escaped religion and was fortunate to have Him remove my blinders so I could see myself as I am a wretched sinner and Him as He is a perfect and glorious “person”. For I need Him, but He doesn’t need me but in His kindness and patience He revealed Himself and I have been forever changed thanks be to God.

 

[seamusmohr]

So say the Orthodox legends, yes, vide Nicephorus or Dorotheus, as cited by Gray.

Who is supposed to have been his brother?

GKC

Barnabus! He’s been identified as Zebedee father of S.James and S.John fame!

I cannot find any thing to connect his to S,Peter! Or Arimathea!

Who is this Gray person? I don’t think I’ve come across him! Does he use ST to signify a saint? I should be suspicious of him if this is so, an anglo or even protestant! They’re not the best of historians!

 

[guanophore]

Ask yourself why if the Church is the only interpreter of Scripture why they do not put together a commentary verse by verse and book by book of the entire Bible so we can all understand.

You know, I did have to ask this, since my seminary training was Protestant.

I learned that the Church is NOT the ONLY interpreter of Scripture, as I took many interpretation classes in my Protestant Seminary.

I also learned that the faith is to be received from those to whom it was committed, not extracted from the pages of a book millenia after the fact.

The reason there is no “verse by verse” is because Catholic faith does not come from the Bible. The Catholic faith comes from Jesus Himself. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. In the NT, we see the faith of the Apostles reflected, but it is not the Source. Jesus is the Source.

Also ask why there is not a Book or volume of Books where Catholics and non-Catholics can read what is binding on the entire church (ecumenical)?

I am not sure what you are wanting here. Are you suggesting that the spiritual disciplines and customs practiced differently in various parts of the world should be imposed on everyone? For example, in the East, it is customary to bow. In the West, to kneel.

Why would you want a book to tell you what is binding? Since the Church does this, what need is there to have it all written down in volumes? What is it about the catechism that is not meeting your needs?

The answer should be obvious and that is it would be a great undertaking and because you have to make sure you leave out or change or cover the contradictions that would appear and they would be numerous.

It would be impossible to meet your need, Pat, I fear. You perceive contradictions that do not exist, and I don’t think there is any amount of “volumes” that can resolve this for you. This happens because of what is in your head and heart, not because of the Catholic volumes that are written, or yet to be writtten.

There is no contradiciton between the Church Teaching, and the NT, because both of them come from the same Source.

I am sure and any such commentary on the entire Bible would really be revealing; so you will never see such an animal.

I hear the Navarre commentary is very good. But, you are right, there is no such commentary that can resolve the contradictions that exist in the mind of Pat!

This is the opinion from a former and now a Christian, not a Protestant.

I see now why you call yourself “former” only. In truth, you apparently were not Catholic in faith. You may have been baptized Catholic, but never learned or embraced what it means to be Catholic. this explains why you have so many strange and erroneous ideas about the Catholic faith.

You are Protestant, Pat. You are one of the most vociferos protesting voices here at CAF. Does that bother you?
Pat De;6846256:

It is my attempt to answer the topics question, so it is one persons opinion

. I am no expert on history, I have no PHD or even that smart in general, but I did come out of a religious system and come into the arms of a loving Savior and Lord.

Before anyone decides they want to rant on me; remember I am answering the question to the topic as I see and understand it; it is only my own opinion whether it is right or wrong is for each discerning individual to decide.

Thank you Pat. I cant’ tell that you were ever part of a religious “system”, but clearly you did not embrace Catholic faith in any “former” time in your life. It may be that you were engaged in a form of godliness, without the power thereof.

It is refreshing to see that you have summed up your post stating that it is your opinion and that you dont; have a background in history. You might want to consider obtaining one, though, because it really does make a person look foolish posting all these silly myths as though they were facts, and being unable to bring any evidence to support baselsess assertions.

I would think Rome went wrong too, if I believed things happened the way you represent them here.

Church swears by it’s allegiance to our Loving Savior. Besides they gave you the Bible

Thank you for your opinion. Concerning your last sentence; I am 100% sure you are wrong

Really?!

Do you believe the CC does not swear allegiance to Christ?

Do you believe the CC did not produce the Bible?

Or do you believe both of these?

 

[guanophore]

It is easy to see historical that when Emperor Constantine forced Christianity together with paganism as the national religion, this is when you see the pagan gods become mythological saints.

There is a world of difference between decrimminilzing something, and “forcing” it upon the populace.

As an illustration, we can use the current effort of many to decrimminalize Marijuana. If it does come to the point where smoking marijuana is no longer illegal, then it is likely many more people will embrace it since they won’t have to pay legal penalties. This is not the same as “forcing” the smoking of the weed on the population. Even if it is decrminalized, no one is “forced” to smoke it.

In the same way, when Constantine decrminialized Christianity, no one was “forced” to embrace it. Neither was it “forced” into Paganism or vice versa.

I am interested to see your historical references to pagan gods becoming mytholigical saints. I have spent many years studying saints of both the Eastern and Western Church, and I have yet to see anything like this. I hope you will enlighten us with a source to support your extravagant claim.

So somewhere between 324-337 is where the traditions of men outside of Scripture infiltrate the Church and and just like Israel, they kept adding ritual and ceremonies to please "God" in order to be saved.

I am also anxiously looking forward to your historical evidence to support this assertion.

Frankly, I have to tell you that I think it has absolutely no basis in fact, but I stand ready to examine the evidence you have to provide.

I am also curious to learn why it is that you claim to embrace the docrinal findings of the Nicean council, if you believe that the Church wasd overthrown by Paganism at that time.

Even more so, I would like to know how you can trust your Scripture, which was not canonized until 50 years after this time period. How can a church that has been infiltrated by Paganism assemble an infallible canon?

That is why the reformation started well before Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis, God has always and will always keep a remnant for Himself until the fullness of the gentiles has been fulfilled and he did all that time, which no one knows the day or the hour, but we do know based on current events that the end of the end is coming very soon.

Well, let’s trace that remnant back, shall we? Can you show us in the historical documents where this remnant was during the time you believe the church was infiltrated with Paganism?

Once this happened then there is a period of time where the “Church” had to go back and fill in the blanks,

Once what happened?

What “blanks”?

which is why Pope doesn’t appear to centuries later and why the Vicar of Christ, known by the early church fathers as the Holy Spirit, became Bishops, then Bishops of Rome and them finally the Pontiff.

I am interested to see how you trace this in the documents as well.

It seems to me that the Apostles believed that the HS worked through them when they were together with the HS. they taught this to their successors, the Bishops. The vicar of Christ, the HS, works through the successors of the Apostles. That is why, in the book of Acts, the decision of the Church is described as “it seemed right to the HS and to us”.

Thus the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit went from being God to man.

You are creating a false dichotomy, Pat. The HS has always worked through men. Jesus gave the HS to His Apostles, and instructed them that the HS would lead them into all Truth. The HS inspired those men, and moved them to write the NT. It is sunergesis, cooperation with the Spirit. They are together.

It is also why when looking for and at early “Christian” literature it is difficult to find a lot with credibility, but after 337A.D. you see much more emerge.

What is your standard of “credibility” for the post Apostolic writings?

Are you saying that those documents written AFTER the church was supposedly infiltrated by Paganism there is more credibility?

If you look at what Irenaeus of Lyons France wrote concerning the Eucharist, it is consistent with Pauls account in 1 Corinthians 11, but when one is forced to revise history you must be somewhat creative and how easy to rewrite history when someone and all others who may have known them are dead? A small change in semantics of the dead saint and add a lot of extraneous material it becomes so overwhelming you just accept things by faith (in men) rather than be like the Bereans and test to see if these things are true against Truth (Scripture)

Since Irenaeus was Catholic, we know that His writings, like that of Paul, reflect Catholic faith. When we read these documents from the point of view of the beliefs of those who wrote them, there is no “revision” necessary. They wrote what they believed, and what they believed was Catholic.

Is this one of the documents that you believe lacks credibility?

 Remember Irenaeus wrote in and around 180 AD before all the rituals and extra saving traditions were invented.

Really? what were those?

 

[guanophore]

The best evidence is found in the Bible for there is only one absolute truth.

It may be that you are having trouble because you are starting from a false premise. Yes, there is only one absolute Truth. but I assure you that He is not confined to the pages of Scripture.

Neither did He leave Scripture in charge of His Holy Bride, the Church. In fact, He left His Apostles in authority before a word of the NT was written!

It may be that Scripture is the “best evidence” for you because you have rejected all the rest that He left.

Compare Rome with Scripture. Of course the topic of the thread is “When Did Rome Go Wrong”; so I gave my opinion on it as does anyone else who stays on the topic.

Yes, thank you for your opinion on this topic. I am curious, Pat. When you say “compare Rome with scripture”, how are you defining “Rome”?

My opinion is based on Scripture, what I know about Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Scripture and some of the early writings.

This does not really explain how come there are so many modern silly myths interlaced with your opinion. The ideas you have represented here cannot be found within Roman Catholicim or any of the other sources by which you claim to bre informed.

One has to wonder how you came by “what I know”?

 

[seamusmohr]

I think if the Church in England was not “under Rome”, then the schism would never have happened. The Pope tried to assert the teaching of the Church over the King. The King rebelled, and it was all downhill from there.

Europe had been up in arms against the papacy for some two hundred or three hundred years as the ancient teachings came to the fore and the Councils became understood. The fact is that the Councils were the magisterium and did give the role of Primate of the West .

Be that as it may, the primacy of Rome with regard to the doctrine of the faith had nothing to do with either of these events. It was considered to have primacy because of the ministries of Peter and Paul prior to their martyrdom there.

Paul and Peter,Peter and Paul! No one doubts the place of either of the apostles, but we do know that at the Council of Nice,* the Primacy was given because it was OLD ROME, whilst Constantinople was the New Rome! The Old and New capital of the Roman Empire.

quote ]Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.”

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).
The unity with, and primacy of the Church in Rome is based upon the Apostolic foundation laid by Peter and Paul.*

The apostles are quite safe no one doubts them and their place in the scheme of things, what you have to do is explain how the Petrine Claims, or Petrine Powers descended on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome. Iranaeus is simply saying what was said about all the apostolic sees at that time. They held the letters and teaching of their founders!
Later on the same was said of the Bishops they had created!

No. The Church has one King, who is Christ. I will concede that many secular rulers have attempted to pressure the church, and exercise authority over her, but she answers to a higher King.

I agree with what you say. You have misunderstood what I was attempting to say.

Either ruler, if they depart from the teachings of the Apostles, is out of order. To that extent, there is no difference. However, the Pope was not out of order refusing to allow a divorce. He was insisting that the teaching of Jesus be followed.

I’m not defending Henry he was a cruel and obnoxious man!

What false teaching is that?

The false teaching is both Jurisdiction and Infallibility. As far as I can see from reading various pieces of Anglican, Roman and Orthodox literature with both Scripture and the Fathers there is no basis for these claims.

I’m sorry you have had to wait a long time for this reply, but I have been somewhat under the weather! My apologies!

 

[guanophore]

No, I’m sure you are wrong for God did not come from man, but rather man came from God and therefore Gods word came from God. I understand where you might miss the point since the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit, which is God has been received by many as a man.

Can you please explain this? I dont’ see that anyone has received the HS “as a man”. I don’t think even any of the modern heretical sects do this.

 That is why the DC's, which contain error and why they were canonized in response to the reformation and disagree with the Eastern Orthodox versions because they are not God breathed.  So that helps to answer one reason concerning the topic question "When Did Rome Go Wrong?

There are a couple errors here. One is that the canon of scripture was formed later than 400 AD. It was not.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament canon,[20] and he used the phrase “being canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’ commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” There has been a unity about the canon from these early centuries of the Church. The 27 books of the NT were bound together with the Alexandrian Septuagint by the year 382 AD.

You may not realize this, but Alexandria is a long way from Rome, as are Hippo and Toulouse. It is true that the Bishop of Rome confirnmed what these Catholic Synods had declared, but “Rome” did not change anything. If "Rome’ when “wrong” with regard to the Alexandrian Septuagint, then the whole of the rest of the Church went “wrong” before that!

But truth does not matter to religious people as I see things; it is about rituals and traditions, the external doings.

Thsi statement speaks volumes about your own experience and your perceptions of “religious people”

However, there are many Catholics who do not experience religion this way. Have you considered that your expereince is unique to you, or that others may have an authentic experience of Christ in ritual and tradition?

Do you think there were no Jews of faith who experienced God in the ritual and traditions He gave them?

How will the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics reemerge together?  It won't on doctrine but ideology and traditions, which means it will have a form of unity on the surface, but at the core there will always be the fracture.

Such an assertion is founded upon errors, and is therefore, false.

Unity exists in the Truth, and the Truth is reflected in right doctrine.

That's just my opinion and I have nothing but the knowledge of how people with power and politics can give the appearance of unity. Again only one persons opinion.

Yes, it seems quite clear that your ideas are heavily influenced with power and politics.

Time will tell, but I hope they do work out all of their differences and the Eastern Orthodox persons will bow the knee to the Pope.

Why would you hope that? Will that make it easier for you to dispense with the Teachings of Christ with which you disagree that are found in the Eastern Church, even though they were not influenced by the Pope?

 

[GKC]

Barnabus! He’s been identified as Zebedee father of S.James and S.John fame!

I cannot find any thing to connect his to S,Peter! Or Arimathea!

Who is this Gray person? I don’t think I’ve come across him! Does he use ST to signify a saint? I should be suspicious of him if this is so, an anglo or even protestant! They’re not the best of historians!

Andrew Gray, DD, THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 1897. If you don’t know Gray, you don’t know your legends. And yes, he uses “St.” No, I don’t consider him a good historian.

GKC

 

[placido]

For our note the church is spiritual and not physical in nature.

I am just wondering how Matthew 18:17 would apply to a spiritual (therefore invisible) church …

placido

 

[Pat_De]

It may be that you are having trouble because you are starting from a false premise. Yes, there is only one absolute Truth. but I assure you that He is not confined to the pages of Scripture.

No one said it was confined you added that, and God chose one such place to give it through the Holy Spirit filled writers of the book we call the Bible less the DC’s.

Neither did He leave Scripture in charge of His Holy Bride, the Church. In fact, He left His Apostles in authority before a word of the NT was written!

This is an example of error as the Bible, the Truth, has something different to say.
**"The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. ** Does this say anything about your misconception?

---

Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands,* as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all {people} life and breath and all things; **

Do you even know the God of the Bible? What make you believe He will allow you into His kingdom; on what basis do you think He will?

yet for us there is {but} one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we {exist} for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we {exist} through Him.

The God I know I owe my existence to and through Him, not some religion or a “church”; is the Scripture not contain absolute truth?
**
20 Which he wrought in Christ, raising him up from the dead and setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places. 21 Above all principality and power and virtue and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. 22 And he hath subjected all things under his feet and hath made him head over all the church, 23 Which is his body and the fullness of him who is filled all in all. **

Do you have any understanding of verses 22b and 23 in relation to your erroneous statement? Does the second half of verse 22 have a familiar job description to one whom you would bow down to and call Holy Father; would that being pleasing to your “God” or do you think the Bible is telling the truth? I’m trying to figure out where you really believe truth comes from because it appears to me that your “false premise”, that apostolic authority given by Christ to the church, can’t stand up to the truth found in the Bible, the truth of the living God who created all things for Himself and for His glory, the one who made all people including the apostles to whom He gave the honor and privileged to first reveal mysteries, namely Christ preached to the gentiles unto salvation, and then to allow them to go out and share the Word which existed before time began. You have it so backwards that if you do not understand where the truth comes from and where it still stands, which is solely with Christ, then you may never see the Kingdom and the Lord in all of His glory in my opinion and assessment of your spiritual errors. It is only my opinion based on the truth contained in the word of God.

If the “Church” is the only interpreter of the Bible given by Christ to the one holy Catholic Church, then where is the verse by verse book by book interpretation so we can all understand and have the truth for all? Then we can all become Catholic without any excuse because the infallible interpreter would give us all true interpretation of every jot and tittle and after all they have had 2000 years to come up with it; where is it so we can all know ? Where are all the ecumenical statements from all the councils, Popes and other sources all in one location, such as a volume of books so we can know the extra binding revelation; are there not enough scholars and theologians to produce such a volume so we can all know? Seems like the Holy Spirit and the Word of God is doing the work that should have been done by the infallible interpreter from the apostolic tradition unless this is not true and it is actually from men and therefore fallible. Can you please explain to me why these things do not exist and why your premise contradicts what is know as truth. Thank you.

---

Perhaps this will shed some more Light:***
**20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. **

continued next post

 

[Pat_De]

I could go more into the NT or into Isaiah or Zacharia or Psalms and show you more of your tremendous error unless the Bible doesn’t contain absolute truth. But just to make sure you do not miss the point that it is Jesus Christ, not some apostolic succession of men or a religion or a church os some sort, then believe the words of God or not:
**
16 For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the {Father’s} good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, {I say,} whether things on earth or things in heaven.**

***I feel a little like Elvis with all the coloring…LOL *** But to each their own; you believe in an apostolic authority and an infallible “church” and believe Christ put a man as the Vicar of Christ on earth; I have a different view based on what my Bible, which I believe contains the absolute truth of God and believe it is a contradiction to your belief’s and in the end if we each maintain our convictions one of us will be with God and the other separated, but we will both know which was true, something we both can agree on.

 

[Pat_De]

Can you please explain this? I dont’ see that anyone has received the HS “as a man”. I don’t think even any of the modern heretical sects do this.

I believe the man in Vatican City who wears the red shoes is called and/or known as the Vicar of Christ by many people; something that the ecf’s did not recognize because it took about 1800 plus years to fully emerge in an ecumenical capacity. A problem with Rome perhaps as the topic asks?

There are a couple errors here. One is that the canon of scripture was formed later than 400 AD. It was not.

Perhaps you could take you argument on that with Tim Staples; i think he would disagree with you and place it much much later; perhaps you know him personally and can ask him. He spoke about it in a debate…hint hint.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament canon,[20] and he used the phrase “being canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’ commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” There has been a unity about the canon from these early centuries of the Church. The 27 books of the NT were bound together with the Alexandrian Septuagint by the year 382 AD.

I have two words, well four. Not ecumenical - Tim Staples.

You may not realize this, but Alexandria is a long way from Rome, as are Hippo and Toulouse. It is true that the Bishop of Rome confirnmed what these Catholic Synods had declared, but “Rome” did not change anything. If "Rome’ when “wrong” with regard to the Alexandrian Septuagint, then the whole of the rest of the Church went “wrong” before that!

Now you are beginning to CYB and wiggling.

Thsi statement speaks volumes about your own experience and your perceptions of “religious people”

I do have a personal preference for the one on one with Jesus as opposed to people seeking religion to fill the gaps in their life with a desire to change themselves, which is not a bad thing, but just looking in places where they will be disappointed in the end if not sooner. I desire all people to know and accept the Gospel whether religious or non religious; don’t you?

However, there are many Catholics who do not experience religion this way. Have you considered that your expereince is unique to you, or that others may have an authentic experience of Christ in ritual and tradition?

i do like the phrase you chose “experience religion this way” and that is the issue, the seekers of an experience and not a Person; they think within the experience is the Person, but sadly that is not where the Person is or resides.

Do you think there were no Jews of faith who experienced God in the ritual and traditions He gave them?

Can you clarify “Jews of faith”, “faith” in what or whom?

Such an assertion is founded upon errors, and is therefore, false.

Such is your opinion of what is error, which may or may not be true, but for sure it is your opinion.

Unity exists in the Truth, and the Truth is reflected in right doctrine.

Then there will be as I said a superficial unity, which is not really unity since you will never unite on doctrine, which was the point. We can all unite on some doctrine, but that is “partial unity”, so you may achieve a partial unity based on doctrine and the appearance of full unity based on superficial basis.

Why would you hope that? Will that make it easier for you to dispense with the Teachings of Christ with which you disagree that are found in the Eastern Church, even though they were not influenced by the Pope?

No, just one less religion under the umbrella of “Christianity”.

 

[Pat_De]

This may seem a little late, but the title of the topic :When did Rome Go Wrong"? Doesn’t that presuppose that Rome went wrong? And for the Catholics participating, doesn’t kind give the appearance there is some agreement among you on the premise since you are engaged in the discussion as opposed to saying “Rome never went wrong-end of story-later.”

Just a thought that came to mind. No need to respond; just me thinking out loud and posting those thoughts. By responding we will then change the topic, which by my account is surprising to see on CAF and I have plenty to say, but not much more on the “When did” because in my mind it would be day 1, whenever that was and continues through this day and into the future as the Lord wills for it according to His purpose for the Catholic religion.

 

[Pat_De]

Thank you for the kind and charitable words; I’ll accept that as a blessing. So when do you start addressing “makey-up history” - this is page 34 or 35? BTW, I prefer divine love over human respect and so does the Lord Jesus.

 

[PRmerger]

What Pat abhors is a figment of his own imagination–that is, a pornographized version of Catholicism.

He has gulped down the “porn” version of what the Catholic church is and bought it for the truth.

He despises something that doesn’t even exist. Just like a man who devours porn has attached himself to the image of a woman that doesn’t actually exist.

Sadly, he has no idea what the Church he was baptized into actually teaches. :sad_yes: